Personal Experience, what can I say? People who are competitive get there. That's what it takes. "What it takes" is essential for success. You need the killer instinct. Or connections, which is a form of cheating, and cheaters aren't nice. Therefore, nice guys [or girls!] never win.
113 days ago | Tagged As: True
Connections are a form of cheating? Would you consider someone who cheats on their taxes, but gives the money they save to kids with a cancer as not nice?
108 days ago | Tagged As: False
ALSO, giving money to save kids with cancer is a nice thing... done by an obviously nice person... but a cheater.
107 days ago | Tagged As: True
Of course not! But that's completely irrelevant. Why bring cancer children into this?? Just, why? I DONATED TO CANCER CHILDREN, thank you very much. So don't go there. =]
107 days ago | Tagged As: True
"But that's completely irrelevant. Why bring cancer children into this?? Just, why?"- how is that irrelevant at all? Just because I used children with cancer as a part of my example? Is there something wrong with that? Its not like I said anything bad about them, so why does it matter? Maybe you are just ignorant enough to look over my point and try to make it seem like I was insulting children with cancer. "I DONATED TO CANCER CHILDREN, thank you very much. So don't go there."- don't go where? I didn't say anything bad about them you fucking idiot. The point that you obviously weren't smart enough to see was that cheaters can be nice people. Please don't give me another ignorant response.
106 days ago | Tagged As: False
I'm saying, don't use cancer children as an example. Yeah, I guess someone could donate to them by cheating, and you're right, that does make them nice. It doesn't make them win, though. And no... you misunderstood me. I'm not here to get personal... please don't call me a 'fucking idiot'. I wasn't inferring that you said something bad about cancer children. I was saying don't make it seem like I'm not involved or whatever you were trying to say... but that's not the point. I'm sorry that you're able to guiltlessly say 'you obviously weren't smart enough to...' I guess you're not one of the nice guys! =] Touche, cheaters can be nice people, but even if they are cheating with their money for a good cause, that money is taken from someone else who earned it. Whenever anyone steals, someone is being gypped of something that they own.
102 days ago | Tagged As: True
It doesnt matter if they win or not. You said that cheaters aren't nice and I gave you an example of how they were nice. "I wasn't inferring that you said something bad about cancer children."- if I didnt say anything bad about them, then what is the problem with using them as an example? "I was saying don't make it seem like I'm not involved or whatever you were trying to say... but that's not the point. "- what does that have to do with anything we are talking about? It seems like you are just trying to tell people that you help children with cancer. Like you want the credit for it or something. "I guess you're not one of the nice guys"- im not nice to people who make wild claims backed with inconclusive evidence. "that money is taken from someone else who earned it"- technically that isnt true because they earned the money, they just aren't giving it to the government to use.
102 days ago | Tagged As: False
Ok. {I'm typing this for the second time because it just got deleted. >:-0! } 1) It does matter if the win or not. The agrument is called "Nice guys never WIN". 2) I wasn't saying at all that you were talking bad about cancer children. I was saying that you shouldn't have used them as an example because EVERYONE pities people with cancer, and it's kind of a given that those who can donate to them will, or want to. It's like a guilt-trip weak spot. So of course I have to agree with you that it's nice to donate to them, but whether it's nice or not, it's wrong to take money or not pay it where it needs to be. It is stealing, because they owe that money to the government or wherever it's going to, while everyone else is coughing up all they can to get there... 3) Sure. Credit is nice, because I feel that it was a nice cause to donate to. BUT, I didn't bring it up for credit, I was bringing it up because you said whatever you said about them in such an accusatory way that I felt you were accusing me of not being someone who would understand that kind of donating. 4) "im not nice to people who make wild claims backed with inconclusive evidence." Well. I try and be open-minded when someone else given their opinion, and not call them "Fucking idiot"s just because I don't agree with or understand what they're saying, or that they don't think EXACTLY like ME. I try and see what they mean, and if I don't agree, I'll agree to disagree and move on =] 5) Thinking back... you're the one that made wild claims with really no point behind them. Let's say you were right, that people who take money out of their taxes to donate to cancer children are nice, and they're not cheating in any way. Sure, so that disputes one of my points, but what does that say for your side of the argument? It says that nice people can be cheaters, but... "NICE GUYS NEVER WIN" ... do they win? Donating to cancer children is an act of kindness to others, so yeah, they get the satisfaction that they did something, but who's winning here? ... The nice guys who now have tax debt?
100 days ago | Tagged As: True
1) We weren't talking if they would win or not. I was telling you that you were wrong when you said nice guys couldn't be cheaters. 2) Using a child with cancer in a example, keeps me from pitying them? Your logic makes no sense whatsoever. "it's wrong to take money or not pay it where it needs to be"- so if a child needs an organ transplant or they will die, and they cant afford it, its wrong for someone to rob a bank for the money? Oh right, should i have not used a sick child as an example? 3) I was explaining that the guy was nice for donating. How could that translate into me accusing you "of not being someone who would understand that kind of donating. " ? Either you weren't smart enough to interpret it correctly, or you just wanted people to know that you donate to children with cancer. You choose. 4) "just because I don't agree with or understand what they're saying"- i understand what you are trying to say, but what you are saying doesnt make sense. It wasnt just because I didnt agree with you. 5) We were never discussing if they could win or not. We were arguing on whether or not a cheater could be considered a nice person. In my opinion, by donating to children with cancer, they do win. They have tax debt because they donated to a higher cause.
99 days ago | Tagged As: False
Ok, are you arguing just to argue? Because it seems like you're frantically searching for details to critique, because you could easily give in to an argument that I'm obviously winning. [I'm going by your number system] 2) I actually don't remember what my 'logic' was, but OF COURSE it's wrong to do that! Robbing a bank is robbing someone, which is wrong. No matter the intentions. That's not their money to use. If they want to use their own money to donate, fine, but there is no excuse for robbing a bank for it. What if the bank company had a family involved that had some other great medical issue? Then you'd be saving the cancer patients, but you may have just killed someone else, by taking away money where it was needed to save another life. Nice going, nice guy! 3) I choose neither, thanks. Go back and read what we said, with my comment in mind. It'll make sense to you. I couldn't figure out really how to word it, but you made some kind of offensive comment. So I was on the defense.. I didn't know how to explain it any better. But do you kind of get what I'm saying? 4) ... Ok, thanks for saying "I understand what you are trying to say". I now have some belief that you're a real person with ACTUAL feelings, but honestly, I don't even remember what I was saying at that point in the argument, and I'm too lazy to go check. :) 5) Ok sure. That makes enough sense. I was just pointing out that that doesn't really secure the ARGUMENT too much, "Nice guys never win" (but I guess that depends on your interpretation of winning).
98 days ago | Tagged As: True
[Changed my mind- just looked at #4] 4) Oh, ok. Whatever, I guess... I get what you're saying now, but why? Why did you have to call me that?
98 days ago | Tagged As: True
"because you could easily give in to an argument that I'm obviously winning."- im not sure its obvious that you are winning at all, but im arguing with you because you are being irrational. "[I'm going by your number system]"- are you an idiot? I numbered my statements because i could easily keep track of yours. 1)? 2) "Robbing a bank is robbing someone, which is wrong. No matter the intentions."- you really have to look at it from more than one angle. "What if the bank company had a family involved that had some other great medical issue?"- the money would be insured, but that would also be an exception. 3) "I couldn't figure out really how to word it"- so you are choosing that you weren't smart enough to interpret it correctly? Saying that you donated to children with cancer had no relevance to this debate. How could you even think that I was somehow trying to attack you for not donating to children with cancer? It doesn't make sense at all. 4) Why is it such a big deal? Are you really that sensitive? I called you it because its true. 5) What would you consider to be more important: paying your taxes or donating to sick children?
97 days ago | Tagged As: False
Lol. I guess it wasn't just me who gets you all butthurt. You'll never win an argument on this topic.
97 days ago | Tagged As: True
Its funny that you say that since the FALSE side is winning this argument. Lol, you're an idiot.
96 days ago | Tagged As: False
LOL @ USING OPINION POLLS AS A MEANS TO DETERMINE YOUR STANCE!!! It's funny how you say wikipedia is flawed because anybody can post anything they want on it but how using the same technique on CD it is not flawed. TBH it doesn't matter what you say. As I said earlier.. you'll never win an argument on this topic.
96 days ago | Tagged As: True
.............P.S.....IF SOME SICKO TOUCHED YOU AS A KID kinda,THEN GET HELP!. Stop punishing everyone else for something that happened to you.We didnt do any thing to you.Homosexuals did nothing to you.And while your at it ,wiki "arshole" and check yourself out.Yes i been following you about on CD, i like picking on Bullies.I believe bullies are the reason why fuck all people enjoy coming here and its the reason why fuck all people stick about. So yeh at this stage i dont know if nice guys never win,(your still here) but i guess in time i (im still here too) will find out.
96 days ago | Tagged As: False
lol wtf do you listen to yourself?? IM the one with my head lodged up my ass.... sigh..
94 days ago | Tagged As: True
yeah i do.... it can be kinda creepy........sigh...but im not listening to you and you anymore , so i guess as boring as it is , i got nothing more to say so , .
94 days ago | Tagged As: False
FFFIIINAAALLLYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!! You get it. Leave me alone. Thank God. Woman.
93 days ago | Tagged As: True
yes I AM WOMAN ......so i get to have the last word...........................................word.
93 days ago | Tagged As: False
"LOL @ USING OPINION POLLS AS A MEANS TO DETERMINE YOUR STANCE!!!"- lol your just mad because i really am winning here. "It's funny how you say wikipedia is flawed because anybody can post anything they want on it but how using the same technique on CD it is not flawed."- im not taking comments from createdebate as points of reference. Im not using it as a source. Wikipedia cannot be used as a source as well. Once again, you're an idiot, stop trying. "you'll never win an argument on this topic"- lol, too bad for you, i am winning.
96 days ago | Tagged As: False
You're using the polling on CD as your reference. lol. Don't worry your stupidity won't let you ackowledge your contradictions and hypocrisy. Check mate btw.
94 days ago | Tagged As: True
"You're using the polling on CD as your reference. lol."- im using the score because if some people read our arguments, they will vote for the side that is supported by the person that they agree with. Obviously, you weren't smart enough to figure this out. "Don't worry your stupidity won't let you ackowledge your contradictions and hypocrisy."- hey you actually attempted at insulting me without calling me some elementary school name. Maybe you are learning from your mistakes. "Check mate btw."- its not check mate until you insult successfully and/or you prove me wrong. Sorry, but you haven't achieved these things yet.
94 days ago | Tagged As: False
Wait so people inputting their opinion is different from wikipedia how? Face it. You use whatever suits you best. On this website people are able to come onto a debate and upvote/debate no matter how much they know or don't know about the subject. Same as wikipedia. Even worse is the fact that it's you and dacey downvoting and upvoting everyone. Hmmm... THAT obviously makes it a completely neutral argument. It was check mate. I just had to point out how it is check mate because you're too stupid to realise. Wankstain.
93 days ago | Tagged As: True
"Wait so people inputting their opinion is different from wikipedia how?"- its not different and i never said that it was different. "Even worse is the fact that it's you and dacey downvoting and upvoting everyone."- i havent downvoted or upvoted anyone. There is only one comment on the right side, the false side, that is above 1 point. That obviously makes it a completely fair argument. Stop making excuses. "It was check mate. I just had to point out how it is check mate because you're too stupid to realise."- its impossible to realize something that hasn't occurred. "Wankstain."- i actually thought that you grew out of your old ways, but once again you fail to surprise.
93 days ago | Tagged As: False
its not different and i never said that it was different. Wait. What was that? You admit defeat. When I post a wikipedia as a source you say that its flawed... but you want to prove you're on the right side by looking at the poll count (which all of a sudden isnt flawed) even though the same techniques are used for both. Now you just admitted it. You admitted your contradiction. :) -> I repeatedly have to show you check mate. And being as continuously stupid as you are... you can't see it.
93 days ago | Tagged As: True
"its not different and i never said that it was different."- how is that admitting defeat at all? lol, you are so fucking stupid. "When I post a wikipedia as a source you say that its flawed... but you want to prove you're on the right side by looking at the poll count"- those are two completely different things, which you obviously couldnt see. Wikipedia is flawed as a source because its full of incorrect or biased information. The poll count shows who is supported by the majority. It is a display of support for information, possibly unbiased, introduced by separate sides. "I repeatedly have to show you check mate. "- you show me check mate? Does it even make sense to say it that way? You are such an idiot.
92 days ago | Tagged As: False
So explain the difference: Both sites have bias. Both sites are full of incorrect information. Both sites show what the majority enters. My point is not regarding their accuracy.. only that both sites are full of faults and you can't (especially YOU) judge which is more accurate. That's where your hypocracy lies. You're wrong either way until you can prove to me what the term nice guy means. You've avoided that throughout all your posts. I have got nothing more to say. If you continue it's probably only for the sake of argument or through stubborness than the lack of reasoning on my side.
92 days ago | Tagged As: True
"Both sites are full of incorrect information."- the difference is that some people try to use wikipedia as a source, when, in fact, it is the same as this site. "Both sites show what the majority enters."- what? An entire Wikipedia article can change from one person. There is no kind of majority going on there. You may argue that more people biased to one side would more often change the information, but then that is not the same thing as on this site. The important fact on this site is that the readers can see both sides of the argument and later choose who they support. On wikipedia there is only one side to see. "My point is not regarding their accuracy.. only that both sites are full of faults and you can't (especially YOU) judge which is more accurate."- your point is not regarding their accuracy only that people can judge their accuracy? What the hell? lol you are so fucking stupid. "You're wrong either way until you can prove to me what the term nice guy means."- first of all what does that have to do with anything we are talking about? You are obviously trying to get off topic. Second, i have answered this question a long time ago and im not going to waste my time finding it because we have already been through that debate and you lost. "I have got nothing more to say."- thank GOD. I think you are starting to refrain from using those children names. Have you found that they make you look like idiots?
91 days ago | Tagged As: False
I guess everyone's an idiot except you, huh Sirius? How does is feel to be the smartest person on Earth?
96 days ago | Tagged As: True
Not everyone. Just you and Kinda. Im not the smartest person on the earth, im just smarter than you two.
96 days ago | Tagged As: False
Alright, unless we've all taken IQ tests, there's no way to measure that. It only shows that you're meaner, definitely not smarter. It seems that your technique is to call people idiots just to make them step off and move on to another debate... but it's not proving that you're smarter. At ALL, actually. You seem arrogant enough to claim that you're the smartest person on earth... but I guess you'll argue that, too. Because since I'm OBVIOUSLY of lower IQ level, I'm PROBABLY wrong, so what do I know? You're right again, mister! Ah, just amazing how that always comes out the same, isn't it? Sweet Bejesus, you're smart, dude! Congrats, and give yourself a pat on the back. And while I have no way of knowing, by levels of debating technique, it seems to me that Kinda and I are both smarter than you. And nicer, but we'll never win this debate, because of that! Golly willikers, it sucks to be nice.
96 days ago | Tagged As: True
"Alright, unless we've all taken IQ tests, there's no way to measure that. "- you wouldn't understand, you're not smart enough. "It only shows that you're meaner, definitely not smarter."- dont worry, i am smarter than you. "It seems that your technique is to call people idiots just to make them step off and move on to another debate... but it's not proving that you're smarter. At ALL, actually."- thats not my technique at all and you just proved again that you are an idiot for saying something like that. "You're right again, mister!"- just for saying that, i think that you are more intelligent than i thought. "Congrats, and give yourself a pat on the back."- dont need to. "it seems to me that Kinda and I are both smarter than you"- it seems to you that way because you are dumb. I am smarter than you both combined. "Golly willikers"- havent heard that one before, im not being sarcastic.
96 days ago | Tagged As: False
Haha. You're certainly modest! Anyways, I don't care what you say. I'm here to DEBATE. Not argue, and get insultingly personal with people.
93 days ago | Tagged As: True
"'m here to DEBATE. Not argue"- im not sure what the difference is. Isn't a debate a kind of argument?
92 days ago | Tagged As: False
Yeah, but I'm not here to argue about who's smarter or worthless shit like that, I'm here to argue about whether nice guys ever win, etc.
92 days ago | Tagged As: True
"I'm here to argue about whether nice guys ever win, etc."- not really since you are continuing to argue about this.
91 days ago | Tagged As: False
So if false is the winning side of the argument... then the mean guys are winning... so the nice guys aren't!
96 days ago | Tagged As: True
"then the mean guys are winning... so the nice guys aren't!"- im actually being nice to you.
96 days ago | Tagged As: False
Since when does "being nice" involve insisting to someone you've never met that you're smarter and that they're a 'fucking idiot'?? Never.
93 days ago | Tagged As: True
"Since when does "being nice" involve insisting to someone you've never met that you're smarter and that they're a 'fucking idiot'??"- oh trust me, thats exactly what it involves.
92 days ago | Tagged As: False
Ummm, no??? Why would I trust you, in any way? That makes absolutely no sense, and I'm thinking that I'm pretty much done talking with you now...
92 days ago | Tagged As: True
"Why would I trust you, in any way?"- because im smarter than you and can make better decisions. "I'm thinking that I'm pretty much done talking with you now..."- good, finally.......
91 days ago | Tagged As: False
I'm not being irrational. I'll be honest and say that I've been trying to be nice to you, but you're a complete jerk. And one who is worthless to argue with, because you're not even attempting to see things the way I'm trying to tell you. Along with that, your calling me an idiot is pretty ironic, because my arguments are as clear as day and you're not getting it. Goodbye. Good luck with life.
96 days ago | Tagged As: True
"you're a complete jerk"- uh oh, im a jerk. "you're not even attempting to see things the way I'm trying to tell you"- maybe if there was some kind of rational argument that you were putting forth, you would be able persuade me to see it from your side. "my arguments are as clear as day and you're not getting it."- they clearly aren't
96 days ago | Tagged As: False
You're clearly an idiot, otherwise you'd understand. The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
96 days ago | Tagged As: True
You're an idiot for calling me an idiot. I can't understand the stuff that an idiot types.
96 days ago | Tagged As: False
Alright, you win! Oh hey... what's the name of the argument... hmm..... WHO'S THE IDIOT NOW, SIRIUS? I was right. =]
96 days ago | Tagged As: True
"I was right."- no, you were wrong because i am a nice guy.
96 days ago | Tagged As: False
lol at cheating part. You could say connections is a form of cheating but it is actually a form of competition. To make the connection and to be able to use it requires certain skills i.e. to be able to make that connection like you - to give you a favour. Except for those rich cunts with rich parents who don't have to lift a finger in their life - only study - and they've got their life set for them. I don't actually mind them until they become snobs. Then they deserve to die and I wouldn't mind kiling them.
112 days ago | Tagged As: True
You know what I just realized? I might get killed for saying this, but maybe the winning argument is 'false' because the majority of the people aren't nice... or just haven't had the pleasure of being back-stabbed and stepped on by "friends" along the way. :)
100 days ago | Tagged As: True
Lol nice guys. If you'd rank them by trophies.. they'd get the 'being a good sport' trophy. What's funny is that women SAY they want a nice guy.. but they all know deep down in their hearts they like a real man.
143 days ago | Tagged As: True
Completely true, man. Join the facebook group, "The Nice Guys." Or something like that. It's all about what you just argued. You are hands-down correct. Very nice.
113 days ago | Tagged As: True
I guess nice guys aren't "real men"? That was a stupid thing to say.
140 days ago | Tagged As: False
really?? explain..........
140 days ago | Tagged As: True
Define what a "real man" is, and then you explain it to me.
140 days ago | Tagged As: False
Definately not you. It's a loooong ass process but one thing is not to be a pussy.
139 days ago | Tagged As: True
"Definately not you"- you don't even know me. This just shows that you have no idea what you are talking about.
139 days ago | Tagged As: False
That's not complaining. To counter argue that read the rest of your point... LOL... and if THAT's not complainig... read your other posts... When did you ever ask me to define it? really?? explain.......... "not calling anybody names?"- when someone starts to call somebody else names, it shows two things. They are frustrated and they have nothing more sophisticated to say to the other person. You resorted to name-calling, which shows how your statements have little importance to the debate. No, it just means I'm calling you names. Why? Because it's fun. Watching you complain is also kinda funny. Watching you complaing about name calling is funnier. Watching you complain about how you don't complain makes most of this worthwhile. *BTW the word complain can also be replaces whinge, whine, moan etc. "A - Nice guys aren't pussies"- the nicest man in the world couldn't be the strongest and bravest person on the planet? It is extremely ignorant to act as though any person who is nice, is also a pussy. That is what a 'nice guy' is. Unless you've got a different definition. Doesn't just mean a guy who is nice but also other things. Nice guys are complete pussied up little mummy boy pansies. Like you. It also means they COULD be strong (not brave, cause that's NOT being a pum) but they're NOT. So... a hit and a miss pansyboy.
139 days ago | Tagged As: True
"To counter argue that read the rest of your point... LOL... and if THAT's not complainig... read your other posts..."- how does that prove that I was complaining or not? That entire line doesn't mean anything. That's like telling someone that their food tastes bad and when they ask you how, you say taste it again and repeat that it tastes bad. You gain no headway, fail to prove your point, and waste time all in the same instance. Unless you can explain to me how I was complaining, instead of just repeating that I was complaining, there is no reason for you to say anything. "When did you ever ask me to define it?"- how could i explain this? Do you even think before you type? "No, it just means I'm calling you names. Why? Because it's fun."- do you know those who think its fun to call people names? Children. They cannot find anything else to say, so they just make up a name and say it to people. You obviously haven't become sophisticated enough to learn that. What you need to understand is that there is a difference between the words complain and argue. I haven't been complaining about your inability to prove an ignorant point. I have been arguing, though, against what doesn't make sense. I have to argue with you over what you say because most of it is completely irrational and unreasonable. I argue to try to get you to understand that you are not making any sense when you say that real men cannot be nice. "That is what a 'nice guy' is."- you don't understand that a person doesn't necessarily have to be either a "real man" or a nice guy. A "real man" could be a nice guy. It seems as though you have made up your own definition of what a nice guy could be. Basically, a nice guy is a guy who is nice. There is nothing that you could add to that. How could you call a man that is nice a pussy, "mummy boy", or pansy? It wouldn't make sense because you have no information other than the fact that they are nice. "So... a hit and a miss pansyboy."- im guessing that people would probably take you more seriously if you didn't call them names. Hopefully im the only one that you do it to.
138 days ago | Tagged As: False
|
Bill Gates seems like a nice guy, if you're talking about finances he wins. Barrack Obama is a nice guy, if you're talking about power, he wins. Michael Phelps seems like a nice guy, athletically he probably wins. Who are these mean people winning stuff?
108 days ago | Tagged As: False
They're not nice guys. Well actually Bill Gates might be....
97 days ago | Tagged As: True
It takes a long time, but they eventually get thrown a bone. :)
143 days ago | Tagged As: False
Teenage girls go for asses, we grow out of it! Nice guys FTW!
138 days ago | Tagged As: False
Every now and then a nice guy manages to come out. Bill Gates probably falls in the nice guy category, he seems to be doing alright. Even-though this is the exception to the rule. Because of this one example one cannot say nice guys never win. One can say that most of the time nice guys never win.
137 days ago | Tagged As: False
Everybody wins the same amount. It has nothing to do with being a "good" person or a "bad" person. Who decides what's good or bad anyway? Things just happen, fate doesn't decide on what happens if your good or bad...
133 days ago | Tagged As: False
Nice guys dont finish last... depends on the girl though if the girls just looking for a little play toy with more biceps then brains sure nice guys wont win, but if the girl is looking for an actual guy to be with nice guys kick ass
131 days ago | Tagged As: False
Maybe in high school and some college. At those times, sure, girls go for bad-asses. But eventually, she should become mature and realize that a nice guy would be better to raise children with.
108 days ago | Tagged As: False
Why are you just talking about girls, Iced? The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
100 days ago | Tagged As: True
Because the debate is about an old adage. Guy likes girl, girl goes for bad-ass, "nice guys never win." Besides, I don't know enough about gays to say "nice gays never win" or not.....
100 days ago | Tagged As: False
|
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
